Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubarc

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tubarc, Self-Inking, Tubarc Action, Self-Recharging Marker

also pointing here: Self-Recharging Pad, Reversible Masstubarc Flow Siphon, Irrigation On Demand, Erosive Filtering System, Unsaturated Siphon, Molecular Drainage, Masstubarc Biomass Engine, Tubarc Plug System, Tubarc Action

Prior AfD discussion under: Self-Recharging Pad -- Reversible Masstubarc Flow Siphon -- Irrigation On Demand -- Erosive Filtering System -- Unsaturated Siphon -- Molecular Drainage -- Masstubarc Biomass Engine -- Tubarc Plug System

Non-notable, original research and/or independently unverifiable. 36 displayed hits, some of which are other uses, and most are from Tubarc Technologies LLC and their patent filings. Part of a series of related articles[1]. Also possible self-promotion. Tubarc Action has been marked copyvio, but since the website cited just re-posted the text of a Tubarc patent, I'm not sure if it really is copyvio, but should be deleted as part of this series--only one hit for the term, the patent re-post site. I marked Self-Recharging Marker and Self-Inking as copyvios from http://www.tubarc.com but they should probably be deleted as more tubarc promotion unless someone can figure out something appropriate for the titles (which are improperly capitalized, anyway). Regforafd 01:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom dr.alf 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, could this ever be more than dicdef? I read the article, still have no clue what this stuff (lubricant?) is or does. Ifnord 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this per nom, and all the rest of Special:Contributions/200.158.46.64's related articles. (Yes, I've looked at all of them; they're all either blatant advertising spam or original research to support said spam.) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 04:54:56Z
• Delete as advertising/self promotion. I'm not in agreement with the practice of trying to get rid of ad/promotion material under the guise of copyright violation - this seems to be a misuse. CarbonCopy 20:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Misuse of the copyright violation process that is, to circumvent the AfD process. I still think the arcticles in question should go. CarbonCopy 21:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably some form of self promotion. Also, his appears to be much too specialized and obscure to be encylopedic. At the very least, this article would have to be expanded significantly to be of any use. As it is, it is not clear what this is and what it is used for. ManoaChild 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.

  Note that the article creator has now registered as User:Tubarc in order to continue posting copies of this text; I've just AfD'd another at Masstubarc. The username pretty much proves that this is self-promotion. Note that User:Tubarc removed the AfD notice from Tubarc; I've restored it and warned him. — Haeleth Talk 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding other articles to this AfD now, all have the same problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity crapflood, preferably speedy as vandalism. Of them all only "Tubarc Plug System seems to describe a real observable phenomenon, and that is self-referential in respect of the author. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment my delete vote is extended to apply to the three new articles. ManoaChild 23:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the lot, and someone shoot Tubarc. Stifle 15:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the lot. Agree with CarbonCopy though about misuse of copyvio. ++Lar 19:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.